Asking a law firm to do work pro bono is one thing but there is another way which is a win win for law firms and the barristers who are taking legal action through that firm.

It is called funding the litigating through Charitable public funds – this is how it is done.

You have a dark secret which is about to be exposed so you need to find a way to silence those exposing you .

It is deeply embarrassing because in 1999 you had told the minister that your trust existed and that you were in the process of incorporating it but you really got ahead of yourself so much so that you forgot that the “ trust” which you were paid to set up with public funds never actually operated as an “ organisation “

You get law enforcement powers though this “ trust’ but being an independent person you don’t want to trouble the other trustees with things like meetings. Some of the trustees are society ladies and their names look good being associated with an animal welfare group but they are really better at bridge, they don’t understand what a trustee is supposed to do.

So when things get sticky 7 years later and after some ones moggy was illegally euthanized by one of your so called Volunteers who are really council paid dog control officers ,some one starts looking for accountability and finds none.

So when the questions get to tricky and the people are asking embarrassing questions in parliament , from Waitakere city council , MAF and the minister something has to be done to silence those who could blow your whole game and heaven forbid discredit you for your actions.

The people doing the questioning in the mean time have formed a trust in the identical name ( look up ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST previously Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ) and have legally registered it on the register of Charitable trusts . This now proves that you were not being exactly truthful when you told the minister in 1999 that a trust had been formed and was being registered , because it only takes a couple of days to register trust but you know that because you have registered others previously and since.

The society ladies have decided that the whole thing has become too tacky and they don’t want to play any more, there is no record of them having resigned but some how they do put pen to paper and sign the trust deed. Possibly retrospectively … but the date is wrong it is dated three months after you told the minister that a deed existed and 5 months after you told the community wellbeing fund that you had a deed and it is in the process of being registered

Now this trust deed is an agreement between those four people and not any one else, Being unincorporated it has no perpetual existence. Then there is the minor matter that the trust deed says there will be four people now we suddenly have two .. You need to cover up fast- Confusion is always a good tactic .

So another Barrister is approached one who is held in high esteem QSM, former Mayor and had past involvement with animal welfare.

She becomes a “trustee” of an alleged trust, there is no trust deed or proof that she is part of any trust and it is later revealed that she claims to be part of AWINZ some 2 weeks after the legal entity AWINZ was registered. .( see charities commission and click on Wyn Hoadley at the bottom of the page for date of allegedly becoming a trustee )

We know that the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand does not operate from those premises as the council solicitor has told us at least twice that they don’t.

After I had received what I considered to be intimidating phone calls by their legal representative* ,( purportedly a law clerk , according to evidence from the law society at the time ) who they instructed and made threats against my private investigator’s licence if we did not change the legal name of our trust ,Wyn and Neil Wells and a JP called Graeme Coutts together take legalaction as AWINZ despite the fact that they have no evidence at all of having ever existed as a trust together or having any legal standing . Despite this they claim passing off and breach of fair trading …now hang on didn’t Wyn start using that name after the legal entity she is attacking was set up?.. *Question why would two barristers instruct a Law clerk and why is this such a sensitive matter so as to require defamation action some 8 years later ?

They turn down the offer to disuses resolution and see suing as the only way forward , so the other Barrister throws in defamation for good measure because he didn’t like the idea of people pointing out the untruth of the statement to the minister and questioning accountability when it comes to using public funds .

So Nick Wright gets Brookfield’s to take on the matter and David Neutze puts his name to the statement of claim without checking to see if AWINZ really has a claim.

I have copies of a total of $99638.22 in invoices made out to AWINZ. Now AWINZ is an acronym, it stands for the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

If Brookfield’s tried to recover the debt from AWINZ they would fail as at that time there was no trust deed and only those who comprise AWINZ can consent to a debt being incurred , AWINZ could not enter into an agreement in that name and could not sue or be sued in that name. Yet this leading law firm writes invoices out to it.

The chronology goes like this

Date

Event

27/04/2006

AWINZ incorporated by appellant and fellow trustees Highlighting that there is o other legal entity by that name.

3/05/2006

awinz.co.nz web site set up by appellants which states that they are not the same as the Awinz operating in Waitakere

10/05/2006

Wyn Hoadley allegedly becomes a trustee of AWINZ but has no trust deed , We are told that Nuala grove and Sarah Giltrap have resigned.

Didovich, the former manager animal welfare Waitakere becomes a trustee there still is no trust deed – He is the man who approved payment for the trust to be set up using council funds he also witnesses and gets signatures for the 2003 deed he lost his job at council and Wells took his job .

See a samples here note the first invoice dated 2006 was amended to read 2007 , is this what law firms do?

The financials posted on the charities web site show that the charitable funds were used for litigation but discussion could have resolved everything why discuss when legal action using public funds can be so effective.

Also refer to the Email asking for mayors and see if you can find proof of the assertions made in that email – where is the income where is the expenditure where is the transparency the accountability?

Together with Neil Wells Trustees of the Animal welfare institute of New Zeeland by this trust deed.

This is an open letter asking information from all three of you, the information I see is in the public interest and we believe that everyone’s interest would be served if we could have an urgent reply .

An application was made on your behalf ( but without your apparent consent ) as prospective trustees for a trust which you were to call Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand to become a law enforcement agency under the provisions of the animal welfare act.application. And for funds from the community well being fund.as well as funds from the public purse.

You had involvement in the monitoring of the Lord of the rings where you as a trust board as AWINZ must have authorised the end title which the American humane association was to claim as false aha.pdf

You later obtained significant funding from the lord dowding.fundwhich you took over control of .

As members of what is alleged to be a bona fide organisation, you must have been involved in the decisions pertaining to these issues and the inspectors under your control.

I am seeking minutes of the meeting of your organisation which show

that made decisions were made as a board

dates of resignations of Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap

Discussions with regards to engaging Nick Wright as solicitor to take legal action against myself and a legally formed charitable trust .

And what arrangements were made to fund the litigation out of the funds which you had had entrusted to you .

What action you took to ensure that your trust was incorporated as claimed and had the charitable status as claimed.

I would also like to know

why you did not meet with view of resolution

why you could not even get together to sign the trust deed.

What financial arrangements you made about the bank account and why Mr Wells was the only name on the bank account which held significant charitable funds when at the time you were not a body registered with the IRD as being a charitable entity.

I would like these supplied to me in a sworn form as being true.

I cannot understand why I was sued by Neil Wells Wyn Hoadley and Graham Coutts claiming to be AWINZ at a time when I was provided with a trust deed that had your names on it .

There is no shame in being duped, but to stand by and watch some ones life be reduced to tatters and remain silent is a sin and it is not what true humanitarians do . If you hold the truth you must step forward because to stand by and watch me be beaten up through the courts and my family torn apart makes you an accomplice to this whole sorry saga . I will make copies of this publicly available in the interest of transparency

Attached is a report from Mr Wells to Mr Didovich dated 1996( Teritorial authority Animal welfare services.) where by Mr Wells shares his views of setting up an organisation which he was to head and provide animal welfare services to councils , by using the dog and stock control officers. Mr Wells subsequently wrote the first bill for the new animal welfare act to facilitate this concept but this was amended through the no 2 bill and animal welfare was deemed to be ultra vires to council activities.

The manager animal welfare worked actively with Mr Wells to overcome this hurdle and a trust was proposed apparently while Mr. Wells was still on the pay roll of the select committee where he was an independent advisor

Mr Wells purportedly proposed the concept of trust which was to have the city as trustee , the city paid Mr Wells to set up the trust and even recruit the trustees. ( odd that for a voluntary organisation )

I now find that I have conflicting documents which show that the city decided not to go ahead with the trust (19 jan 1999.pdf)and then documents from Didovich 14 june 1999.stating that “There is a very real need to establish the Animal Welfare Trust so that preparation for MAF auditing and subsequent audit and acceptance of the TRUST/IWCC link is achieved in a timely fashion”

I also have a memorandum 21 march 2000.shows Didovich writing to Wells about contracting to the trust . Correspondence which I have obtained form your files would indicate that Mr Wels and Mr Didovich were in close contact with each other over that period of time and it would appear unlikely that Mr Didovich did not know of the intended structure of the trust .

These documents give rise to a number of questions which I request answers to pursuant to LGOIMA

In the email “waitakere re trust dec 1998.pdf”it states “An interim trust has been established by Council, with Neil Wells as acting CEO. Please provide the copy of the signed trust deed .

In the letter 19 January 1999 Mr Wells refers to the discussions with of the city secretary , please advise

who this was at this time

please provide the notes jottings , correspondence or computer entries generated as a result of that discussion including the date when it took place

under whose authority the secretary was acting in making this decision .

Please provide all copies of documents notes and outcomes from the meeting referred to on 26 January at 3pm or the one which was rescheduled in its place also if this meeting overturned the secretaries decision not to include council

Please advise why a trust had purportedly been formed on 23 December and had been over ruled by the city secretary by the 19th January and why Mr. Didovich needed it to be set up urgently in June and why it subsequently became a private trust which needed your manager to drive about Auckland collecting the signatures.

Please advise the dates on which the council secretary worked in the period between 23 December 1998 and 19 January 1999

Who authorised the statement that the council will continue to fund the institute .

Please advise what the status of the institute was at that time ,( this is quite confusing we seem to have a trust then we don’t, if there is no trust please advise who or what the institute that Waitakere supplied funds to was.

Please explain how Waitakere could fund something which did not appear to exist , who was the money paid to ? and in what name were payments for the “ institute” made out to .

Please advise what the councils criteria are for accepting a trust involving the city as formed.

It is some ones idea

We have talked about it

We have put it to councillors

We have seen a copy of a draft deed

Trustees have met and signed the trust deed and we have a copy of the signed deed.

In terms of funding n institute when does an institute exist

It is some ones idea

We have talked about it

We believe it exists

We have seen a copy of a draft deed

We have a copy of a signed deed and we know the organisation exists in reality .

With regards to the letter 21 March Mr Didovich states “On behalf of Waitakere City Council and as the contractor for North Shore City Council (North Shore Animal Care and Control) I am able to provide an assurance that Council is satisfied for staff to enter into an arrangement with AWINZ and that no problems are fore seen and that benefits are expected. Waitakere City Council is aware of any liabilities involved and accepts that responsibility. The intention is that each individual Officer will enter into a “memorandum of under standing” with AWINZ. All fourteen potential Officers have already signed a letter of assurance of which the Minister of Agriculture has received the originals. A copy of the standard letter is attached(attachment 2).

By what authority could the then manager animal welfare provide an assurance on behalf of Council with regards to

i. the use of its staff by an outside organisation for no remuneration

ii. give assurances with regards to liabilities and responsibilities

iii. As the staff to enter into contracts with a third party as part of heir employment

With regards to the statement (“letter 21 March )Waitakere City Council possesses a strong intent to hold a “memorandum of understanding” with AWINZ

How could the city form an intent to have a mou with an organisation which did not exist

Who authorised this statement, did it pass through council ?

Why were councillors not involved

What policy does the council have which enables head of a department to give assurances for and on behalf of their city

Why did the city not sign the MOU (as attached ) and what authority did the city give Mr Didovich to sign it.

With regards to the mou waitakere. does the city have any concerns that Mr Wells was through his employment as manager animal welfare contracting to itself. As attached . What is council policy on this ? the OECD find it unacceptable why does Waitakere city condone it?

In the letter 21 march 2000 Kensington swan is reported as providing a legal opinion with regards to the funding of animal welfare from general revenue, please advise when this proposal passed through council and provide the minutes of that council meeting.

Please advise who authorised the expenses involved in this legal opinion and

provide the costs of this advice.

In the email 14 June 1999 Didovich to Neil Wells , Didovich copies Wells in on correspondence with the city lawyers other correspondence indicates that Mr Didovich and Mr. Wells were working together .On 28 June Mr Didovich follows up with 2 emails in the first he volunteers the services of Neil Wells as Solicitor to do some tweaking and in the second he reiterates “it is becoming a huge issue for the Animal Welfare Services Business Unit to establish the “Trust”. Please advise

what discussions occurred between December 1998 and 28 June 1999 with regards to establishing a trust and

why would Waitakere city need to tweak the deed when it was not going to be a party to the deed.

Could you please provide any documentation or information which would explain why Mr Didovich states “Our last meaningful meeting was early in January and at that stage the deed was on the verge of completion Nothing has changed in almost six months,’ when the current manager of animal welfare at that same time advised MAF that the city would not be involved. “

Please provide the criteria the council has for the ability of heads of department

to contract to themselves.

To sign agreements on behalf of council

Please provide the councils views as to whether Mr Wells appointment as manager Animal welfare was not seen as a conflict of interest when he was representing himself to be the CEO of an organisation which that department contracted to and assigned staff to.

Please advise what council did to ensure that AWINZ was bona fides and actually existed , i.e. obtained trust deeds , verified that it was actually an organisation not just a tradename for person or persons un known.

And lastly What concerns the city now has in view of Mr. Didovich used council money and facilities to set up a trust which had no legal existence on its own ( independent of trustees ) and ability to use council staff to perform work for the “trust” which had no deed, trustees did not meet and he is now claims to be a trustee of a similarly named trust which uses a logo confusingly close to that of Waitakere animal welfare.

I look forward to having the reply urgently as I am preparing documents for an appeal to the court of appeal.

16/02/2010

I am presently working on documents for my appeal and am in the process of putting my chronology together.

It is funny how every time you look at something you see things which were not relevant before but in the light of new information are like seeing that piece of the jigsaw which you couldn’t see for looking before.

What is happening in Waikato has parallels with Waitakere city.

The Question which has to be asked is What is the role of Tom Didovich and why as a manager of Animal welfare Waitakere city was he so heavily involved in the setting up of a trust which he later became trustee of.

Tom Didovich had a conflict of interest in the setting up of AWINZ and that he in fact was the person in council who facilitated the “contracting to AWINZ ‘

He was aware of what was going on and in my observance and my opinion , if he had been an astute impartial manager he should have seen what was going on , but the documents would indicate that he was either part of it or brain dead.

How many managers would allow the staff under their direct supervision to be used by an outside organisation without seeking approval from the top

How the concept worked in Waitakere is explained in this email” Inspectors will not be employed directly by AWINZ but will remain employed by their principal employer. When an Inspector is performing a function under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 he or she will be doing so on a voluntary basis. That is to say that the inspector will not be paid by AWINZ for performing that function.”

Didovich in an affidavit to the court even admitted to driving about Auckland and collecting he signatures of the trustees ( who didn’t meet apart form maybe once in 1998 )

Didovich was the interface with council ,the trusted employee who worked with Neil Wells on a project which intended to set up a national animal welfare body which interlaced with councils and was eventually hopeful of taking over the assets of the cities assets as expressed in the application to the minister at point 7.

Change is brought about one step at a time and it involves suggesting things to parties as if the idea was fresh new idea when in reality it is a step in a larger well orchestrated plan

14.4.98 Didovich is advised of a letter to MAF – in the letter a supposed statement is made “What if Waitakere City put its animal welfare and control services out for tender and a national charitable trust succeeded” The What if being a suggestion when all along the “what if “ is being planned for

But the chronology and the invoice which Didovich approves for public funds to be paid to NE Wells associates for setting up a trust shows that this concept had already been put to council some four months earlier .

There was the discussion between Wells and Didovich in an email dated 3 march 98 about the involvement of council officers in trust. Which leaves you to wonder why the council continued to pay for matters relating to the trust and Why Tom Didovich continued to have a role and even applied for funds for AWINZ from the community well being fund

What is interesting here is that Michael Scott went on to form two trust with Neil Wells , ironically the name of one of those trusts was the national animal welfare trust which is also the name proposed in this document which was put to council by its author Neil Wells “It is proposed that the “National Animal Welfare Trust of New Zealand” (which is referred to later in this document) is established under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.”

On that note I would love to hear from Michael Scott or any one who knows him

Then there is the confidential document 17 September 1998 from Didovich , passing on the information that Territorial authorities will not be recognised in the Bill and the information is provided that there will be “ approved organisations.

Why the confidentiality.. Neil Wells was employed at the time as an independent advisor of the select committee and Didovich had to steer the concept through council to circumvent the issues which got in the way.

Further points as raised before are that Tom Didovich wrote the minister for and on behalf of North Shore. and Waitakere city. Yet the issue had never been put before either council and the agreements which MAF believed would involve the cities only went so far as to involve the manager of Animal welfare. – Again we don’t verify- left hand does not know what the right hand is doing thereby opening the doors to corrupt practices.

And did the council care well apparently not their lawyer Denis Sheard said I was sparring with shadows, Mayor Bob dismissed me as a fruitcake and all the other councillors are silent on the issue.

11/02/2010

I have been working with members of the RNZSPCA Waikato branch, where things are not at all well and an overwhelming similarity exists between its branch and what has happened in Waitakere city with AWINZ.

I have been supplied with a list of members who were voted on to the executive of the incorporated society and have compared that to those listed on the charities web site – you would expect the two to co relate but they don’t

So what is going on and why can’t elected members be on the executive and why do the executive have to sign a confidentiality agreement.. These are public funds which they hold

I have also noticed that the lawyer who processes the trust deeds Brian Adams shows a conflict of interest in that he is also a trustee.

I also hear that the officer listed as Keith Houston is the vet to which the society contracts

I am disappointed that the charities commission does not require certified copies of the minutes of the AGM to validate the names of the people put on the Charities web site.

It appears that if you make it up its fine there is no verification no cross referencing and this firmly closes the door on transparency and opens the door to corruption.

This ties in with the larger picture of AWINZand has surprising parallels

In 1999 Neil Wells who had previously expressed his intent of setting up a territorial animal welfare service and had written the first bill for what was to become animal welfare act 1999 to facilitate it , applied to the minister for AWINZ which did not exist at the time to become an approved organisation to facilitate council employees to be used as SPCA type officers.

In Hamilton at this time the RNZSPCA Waikato branch was told that the land would be rezoned and that they needed to sell so their property at Higgins road sold to Mr & Mrs Kettle and the Hamilton City council facilitated the RNZSPCA in the same building as their dog and stock control officers.

Back in Waitakere city the pilot programme which Neil Wells had set up in 1995 was still ongoing despite the fact that MAF had revoked the licences of the inspectors ( this information passed to me by a former inspector who I have no reason to doubt.)

Waitakere take on the dog control for North shore and call the contract Animal care and control.

Hamilton city also uses the name animal care and control , I have as yet not identified any other cities who use that name .. most call it dog control or the pound.

In 2000 Nearly $400,000 is GIFTED from the RNZSPCA Waikato to a newly set up trust of which Neil Wells is a trustee . ( he does not live in the Waikato he lives in Waitakere city )

By 2003 the deed is amended and the RNZSPCA which was a trustee is dropped off.

No wonder I was sued.. for speaking the truth this iceberg keeps getting bigger. I will not stop chipping away at it until I get it down to an ice cube.

09/02/2010

To get a perspective on what is happening in Hamilton you need to understand the structure of the RNZSPCA and SPCA

New Zealand structure RNZSPCA and SPCA explained ( cut and paste from the RNZSPCA web site )

The national governing body of the organisation is the National Council, elected at the AGM by representatives from the districts. Each of the 54 local SPCAs incorporates in its title the name of the district in which it operates. For example – the Waikato Branch RNZSPCA; Canterbury Branch RNZSPCA; and so on. Not all local SPCAs are “branches”. A small number are member societies, some the original ones from last century. These member societies do not use “RNZ” in their name (eg Wellington SPCA, Otago SPCA).
Each of the 54 local SPCAs runs its own affairs and handles its own finances. A voluntary committee controls the activities. The larger SPCAs have some paid staff, but most rely on unpaid personnel. Each has one or more warranted inspectors, paid or unpaid, to investigate complaints of cruelty and to enforce the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

So why has the Waikato RNZSPCA set up a trust which represents the name of the older societies and why was this trust not incorporated for 5 years after being set up .

I have done some home work and found some more parallels with the Waikato RNZSPCA and AWINZ

In about 2000 The Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA was apparently told that the land they were on was to be rezoned and it would not be suitable to remain on the Higgins road property.

The property was sold and the proceeds of the sale and some extra were given to a newly formed unincorporated trust ( the deed of which is similar to that of AWINZ in style ) .

The council provided facilities for the SPCA to operate along side their dog and stock control officers .

The RNZSPCA Waikato gifted in $397,547.00 to the unincorporated trust in 2000 which was composed of trust deed

The Waikato branch RNZSPCA Settlor

Derek Clive Dalton agricultural scientist

Gavin James Shepherd ( who I believe is the vet who contracts to the SPCA.)

Neil Edward Wells- The man who set up AWINZ and wanted to integrate SPCA with councils

Gwendolen Garrick ( now deceased )

A updated deed was filed Amendment Of Trust Deed which included the newly appointed trustees and two more to replace the councillor who left council and the deceased trustee

It now appears that the incorporated society is no longer a trustee and so with a stroke of the pen some $400,000 has been moved from the societies reach and into a trust which calls itself the SPCA. … dangerous stuff I can see why the natives are getting restless.

But it appears that when any one opens their mouths they too are dealt to like I was on the Auckland Air cadet trust when Neil Wells got rid of me by bad mouthing me and amending the trust deed because I sought accountability.

The Waikato SPCA has been in the news of late.. more people need to speak up there is strength in numbers

08/02/2010

A Herald item on the weekend alluded to employees who could not find their bosses who were the trustees of Mangere East Medical Care Services Trust (MET).

In reading the article you can sense the despair of he employees who have no idea who is what. But the good news for them is that all the trust associated with the venture were incorporated.

This means that there is a legal person who they can make a claim of , through court.

But what would have happened if their employer was AWINZ? The news would not have been good because who would they take to court. Every one could duck for cover and say not me , I am no longer a trustee.

And because it is a private trust there is no obligation to show the minutes.

Accountability- zilch

In 2006 I asked the minister of Agriculture what accountability AWINZ had since it could not be identified as a legal person. Accountability is required by section 122 Animal welfare act because AWINZ is an approved organisation under the act and has the ability to seize any ones pet and have it put down if they think so.

That is what happened to Chloe the cat whose “dad “ asked me for help .

Chloe has been dead for 6 years now and this cat who I never knew made a massive impact on my life only because we asked for accountability and here was none.

When questions are asked and the answers need to remain hidden then apparently attack is the best form of defence and this is exactly what Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts did as alleged trustees of AWINZ. Nuala Grove and sarah Giltrap had the opportunity to speak up and say ” hey thats not right’ but they chose to stay quite.

In my book those who help conceal coruption as as guilty as those who commit the corrupt act. In my Policing days this was called accessory after the fact.

02/02/2010

They could not have opened an account or obtained a loan but MAF and the minister gave them law enforcement abilities. .. A secret well worth protecting.

While it appears that MAF went through the motions of due diligence in approving AWINZ as an approved organisation under the act , they never checked out the most vital details –

DOES AWINZ EXIST IN A LEGAL FORM? – no it does not the trust is set up in the structure which is normally used for family trusts , the structure it has is not suitable for a trading entity let alone one which has law enforcement capabilities.

Incorporation makes the trust a “ legal person’ capable of acting like a natural person.

Without incorporation only the natural people can act- this is well set out in various official documents and acknowledged by any one who would expect accountability .

4.SocietiesA society that is not incorporated cannot sue or be sued in Court. Any Court action would either be taken by, or against, the members individually. An unincorporated society cannot own property or enter into contracts.

5.Land transfer the names of the trustees not the trust appear on the title. Each trustee has to sign to make any transfer valid.

6.unincorporated groups- How-to Guides – Community Resource KitThe rules of an unincorporated group will derive from an agreement between the members or an implied agreement based on past practice, or both. But as an organisation, it will have no particular legal status.

7.Unincorporated charitable trust —community resource kit– this may be used where someone sets up a trust to provide funds for a particular cause. They have the limitation of any unincorporated group and are not recommended for an ongoing community group.

8.Resource consent Waikato –partnerships and unincorporated entities(such as private or family trusts or unincorporated societies) we must have the details of all authorised partners, trustees, members or officers. We may also request a copy of your society’s rules to verify your status as a formal body or society.

It should be noted that The charities commission however is not a register for entities and is only a register for charitable purpose it states

Can an unincorporated collective be registered as a “Charitable Entity” under the Charities Act 2005?Yes. An organisation does not have to be a legal entity to register with the Commission. The Commission expects most organisations that meet the charitable purposes test will be either:
1, a trust, or
2, a society or institution
but not necessarily an incorporated trust, society or institution

DOES AWINZ EXIST AS LEGAL PERSON AS IMPLIED IN THE APPLICATION AND SINCE.– no it does not much has been made of the requirement to be incorporated and by being incorporated the trust would have had perpetual existence and would have been a legal person in its own right. The manner in which AWINZ has been represented both to MAF and to the court is as though it is incorporated.( which it is not )

It takes a very short time to incorporate a trust Mr Wells incorporated two other trusts only one month before he claimed to MAF that he was in the process of incorporating AWINZ.

So why did he claim to MAF 22nd august 1999 the minister22 November 1999 , and in the application for funding 28 October 1999 that it was being incorporated when he knew that he needed a trust deed and quite obviously there was not one? (Please note a copy of the notice of intent docs are attached to the funding application)

What would happen if such a declaration was made for the DPB? Why is this statement acceptable from Mr Wells and being defended in courts and by Government department as being an acceptable statement to make with regards to setting up a law enforcement agency?

DOES AWINZ HAVE A TRUST DEED – there are two trust deeds for two groups of people using the name AWINZ one dated 1st march 2000 some 7 months after the first claim that such a deed existed. ( this is based on the assumption that the deed was not retrospectively signed in 2006 when MAf first realised because of my actions that there was no deed on file and had never been sighted. ) and a second on 5 December 2006, this second trust has a different purpose from the first and added the word the to the name.

ARE BOTH THE AWINZ TRUSTS WITH A TRUST DEED THE SAME No only the first trust was the one which MAF and the minister considered when “ approved” status was given. The trustees of the second trust have no formal obligations or agreement to the legislative powers of the first group, and have adopted this role only by implication and assumption. There is nothing in writing in which Hoadley, Didovich or Coutts have agreed to the legislative responsibilities. Only Wells has signed the MOU with MAF with no evidence that he had the consent of any other person to sign for and on behalf of them.

It has to be debatable therefore that the second group of people can ask the minister to relinquish their approved status, for they do not have one.

CAN ONE PERSON REPRESENT THE OTHERS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL– No for a person to be legally responsible for something there has to be an agreement from that person . It is usual to ensure that

1.That person exists.

2.They are who they claim to be ( usually with some sort of ID )

3.They are aware of their responsibilities

4.They consent to it their involvement

Did MAf check this out.. apparently not !

DOES AWINZ HAVE PERPETUAL EXISTENCE IN ITS OWN RIGHT TO ALLOW TRUSTEES TO COME ON BOARD AND GO . No AWINZ is but a trading name it is not a name which has been registered any where as an entity in its own right ( legal person )

WHAT IS UNTRUE IN THE APPLICATION There were many false claims in the application form for approved status as follows

1.Name of applicant: Animal welfare institute of New Zealand – there was nolegal personor natural person by that name therefore a non person cannot be an applicant.

2.Registered Office: 1156 Huia Road- this is Neil Wells residential address the address was not that of a registered office for AWINZ because AWINZ was not registered it was but a name.

a.10.3. Has any one seen accounts back to the date of this application, Wells maintained in court that the institute had no accounts and Waitakere claimed that no start up funds had been provided.

b.Because the institute will be registered under the charitable trust act 1957-this never occurred even though he had maintained since August that this was happening.( he had incorporated two trusts by this method just one month earlier)

c.10.8 the Waitakere city animal refuge will be the deemed place of custody- Waitakere City denied that AWINZ operated from their facilities , Wells in correspondence to MAF claimed it was leased for $1 per year.

4.Application made by : Neil Wells Trustee- no trust deed existed

5.2. Function of the Institute-It did not exist it had not functioned, there was no trust deed and it was not and never was in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act.

6.The principal purpose of the institute is to promote the welfare of animals– how can something which does not exist have a purpose?

7.5. Management systems -The integrity of the system will be maintained by

·Memorandum of understanding MAF and AWINZ –this is not worth the paper its written on as AWINZ does not exist and cannot enter into contracts.

·Performance contract between AWINZ–this is not worth the paper its written on as AWINZ does not exist and cannot enter into contracts.

·Memorandum of understanding between inspectors employers and AWINZ-The inspectors employer is Waitakere city council , no one in authority from the council, i.e. the executive signed such an agreement. Tom Didovich the then manager Animal welfare division signed for and on behalf of North shore city and Waitakere city.

8.7. Linked organisations – there is no evidenceof the claim that the public assets of Animal welfare services Waitakere will be vested with AWINZ, and there is no evidence that this was ever put into an annual plan.

a.Waitakere city animal welfare service, contracted and won the dog control contract for North shore, it is misleading to say that it took on animal care and control. This was the name which Didovich and Wells gave to the dog control service.

b.“Longer term the institute will compete for territorial animal control services “- this is inline with the original concept which Wells had in 1996- being the Territorial animal welfare services, which was also to be a trading name for himself.

9.9.Legislative Requirements – the criteria are set outin statutesection 121 animal welfare act and require the full name of the applicant – a name which has no legal standing on its own cannot be an applicant. It therefore also follows that if it does not exist and as I am told ,the trustees did not meet.. Then it cannot have a purpose and cannot meet the criteria of the act. – I personally believe that at all times AWINZ was a trading name for Neil Wells

b.Until I questioned the existence of AWINZ in 2006 no other person was visible. We incorporated a trust with the identical name to prove that AWINZ did not exist. Wyn Hoadley claimed to be a trustee commencing two weeks after we had been registered and then claimed that we were using the trading name with which she was associated.

c. Wyn Hoadley was pushed to the fore as” chair person “ she was not a trustee by any other means than by inference and had not signed a deed. Wyn and Didovich are both part of the cover up , Coutts I believe is dangerously ignorant and the man is a JP .

WHAT PROOF IS THERE THAT THIS IS NOT JUST A MISTAKE AN OVER SIGHT ON THE PART OF MR WELLS?

1.The court on the basis of Mr Wells evidence claimed that “ he got ahead of himself “ Had the court seen the full evidence I doubt if this conclusion would have been reached.

2.Mr Wells in correspondence to the council pointed out the requirements of the trust being incorporated these documents are

Assertions made in applications and correspondence as to incorporation “A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand” (AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. The founding trustees are: